C.b.s., a minor by his mother v. United States of America

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1453
___________________________
C.B.S., a minor by his mother and guardian, Stephanie Hope Smith; Stephanie
Hope Smith, individually
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants
v.
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: February 4, 2025
Filed: February 24, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.

-- 1 of 2 --

Appellants appeal the district court’s1 judgment after a bench trial in their
Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) action arising out of a collision between their
vehicle and a United States Postal Service truck. After careful review of the record
and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we find no basis for reversal. See Howard v.
United States, 964 F.3d 712, 716 (8th Cir. 2020) (stating that after a bench trial, the
court reviews legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error; applying
the law of the state where the alleged acts occurred in an FTCA action). We conclude
that the court did not clearly err in its allocation of fault, see Sandhofer v. Abbott-
Northwestern Hosp., 283 N.W.2d 362, 368 (Minn. 1979) (explaining that
apportionment of negligence is the function of the jury and that a verdict will not be
set aside unless it is “manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence”), or in its
damage award, see Molin v. Tyson Truck Line, Inc., 239 N.W.2d 461, 462 (Minn.
1976) (per curiam) (stating that the amount of damages is a fact question). We further
conclude that the court did not plainly err in admitting the medical expert’s testimony.
See Manuel v. MDOW Ins. Co., 791 F.3d 838, 845 (8th Cir. 2015) (applying plain-
error review to expert testimony admitted without objection before or during trial).
Finally, we conclude that the appellants’ various claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel are not a basis for reversal. See Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th
Cir. 1988) (remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel in a civil case is a malpractice
suit against the attorney). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
_____________________________
1The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --